Category talk:Star Trek
Category for "Meta-Trek" (name to be found) An important category would be one collecting all articles we call "Meta-Trek". This category would be the supercategory for categories such as "Episodes", "Movies", "Performers", but should also be used to collect the various articles about Star Trek as a franchise (including the "List of Trek actors birthdays", the "List of 47 references" etc.). I don't really like the title "Meta-Trek" as a name for this category, though. I'd like to suggest Category:Production information, but perhaps you can think of a better title? -- Cid Highwind 11:46, 2005 Jan 20 (CET) :Production information is fine by me. Or perhaps something like Category:About Star Trek? -- Harry 20:33, 20 Jan 2005 (CET) :I agree that we need to group "Episodes." "Movies," "Books," together. I suggest Category:Source Media. Everything here is about Star Trek. Drhaggis 02:20, 22 Jan 2005 (CET) ::Let's simplify that -- either Category:Sources or Category:Media -- if we choose "sources" for all of our canon episodes and productions, then media can be all other forms of star trek: licensed novels; games; and comics; as well as the various companies that make them. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 02:24, 22 Jan 2005 (CET) :Splitting canon from non-canon is a must. Should we include that distiction in the category? Category:Canon Sources and Category:Additional Media perhaps? Too much? Drhaggis 03:06, 22 Jan 2005 (CET) Since "canon" isn't a concept we have to define (although a definition of it is reprinted here), and since we already have a page defining , I don't really see the logic in adding this concept to the suggestion of a category to simply distinguish "in-universe" from "out-of-universe" articles. Keep in mind that a "Canon source" category couldn't simply include the "Episodes" category, for example, because that one contains the "non-canon" TAS episodes. By the way, the canon policy page uses the term Trek franchise - we could either use that one as our category name or should change that page to contain the name we choose here. -- Cid Highwind 00:08, 2005 Jan 23 (CET) Any other opinions? After thinking about it again, I prefer Trek franchise to the earlier suggestion Production information - it better matches the intended scope of the category as a collection of everything that is not in-universe (and it is a term already used elsewhere). About Star Trek is a close contender. -- Cid Highwind 21:51, 2005 Jan 27 (CET) ::::::Any votes or should * Category:Meta-Trek * Category:About Star Trek * Category:Trek franchise * Category:Production * Category:Production information * Category:Source media * Category:Canon sources * Category:Sources * Category:Media * Category:Additional media suggestions be archived or resubmitted? -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 17:43, 16 Mar 2005 (EST) ::This discussion has become a little off-topic I think. If we can reach consensus to create either Trek franchise or Production information, we should do so. Otherwise, archive this discussion for the moment. -- Cid Highwind 08:43, 21 Mar 2005 (EST) :I'd like to call a quick vote here for a new idea i had before this is potentially shelved -- how about Category:Star Trek -- this category would simply use the name of the franchise as a whole .. "Star Trek" -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 10:44, 27 Mar 2005 (EST) Meta Trek: Category:Star Trek Our production information category, for all "out of universe" POV articles about the franchise. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 02:07, 12 Apr 2005 (EDT) Category:Real world POV :moved from category suggestions. To put on the "RealWorld" template, as I've seen it pop up on several articles that it shouldn't, and as far as I can tell There's no way to keep track of where it is. - AJ Halliwell 06:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC) :We already have Category:Star Trek, a category that was first suggested as Category for "Meta-Trek" (name to be found), then agreed upon using that name as production information category, for all "out of universe" POV articles about the franchise. The "Realworld" template also was initially suggested as a template for "Meta-Trek" articles, so that template and the existing category should be placed on the same pages - ideally by replacing existing category links with the template first and then adding the category to the template. I oppose creating yet another category just because there's a controversy about what exactly might constitute "Meta-Trek"... -- Cid Highwind 11:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC) :Note: The "Star Trek" category already has several sub-categories, so perhaps it should not be added automatically by the template. It's safe to say, however, that any article that is in "Star Trek", or a subcategory of that, should probably have the "Meta Trek"/"Production"/"Realworld" template. -- Cid Highwind 11:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC) Well, I wasn't involved in that particular political debate- I just want a way to see what pages have the Template on them (such as the PNA articles) because I know of at least two episodes they've been added to, several novels, and some things that should be from an In-universe POV. (IE: If someone put the Realworld template on Cardassia.) I know Cardassia doesn't constitute "Meta-Trek"... - AJ Halliwell 11:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC) :And now you're officially a part of that debate... because others think that this template should be added to all novel and episode pages, for example. Congratulations... ;) :On the other hand, I don't think categories are generally a good idea if the rationale for them is "to find out on which pages a template doesn't belong". I think the "What links here" of that template would be a much better tool (that doesn't confuse readers at the same time) in this case. -- Cid Highwind 11:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC) :: Archived. --Alan del Beccio 05:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC) Breaking up Category:Star Trek Production material Per the discussion here. - 07:56, October 13, 2011 (UTC) :Oppose, at least for the purpose that has been discussed initially on that page. It is still totally unclear to me how a technique (an article about how images are used as a visual effect to convey "landscape") could sensibly be considered a material (some specific physical object). Please explain, and give examples of articles that should (and shouldn't) be categorized in this category. -- Cid Highwind 08:29, October 13, 2011 (UTC) CGI, Feinberger, Mees panel, Okudagram, and Category:Studio models should be categorized under this since this category should cover "production material" and the techniques used to create them if that page also covers the particular examples of said technique. I leave it to you Cid to point out some examples where that might be confusing and or describes an article that shouldn't be included, based on the stated purpose. - 08:47, October 13, 2011 (UTC) :Studio model; Matte painting - both not to be categorized under this category, because they are about production techniques, not specific materials. The latter one is borderline because it's incomplete, but should either become a technique article or, after a rename, a list of matte paintings. Also, in extension, "Oppose" to any thoughts about creating an effects category as a subcategory to this. That just doesn't work, an effect is not a material. In that regard, adding CGI, an article about another technique, here is questionable, too. -- Cid Highwind 09:04, October 13, 2011 (UTC) I believe that's just splitting hairs there Cid, since studio model is under the category which is mainly material except for the one article. The same could be said of matte painting, since if we need separate articles for individual paintings, it will be much like the studio models. Splitting off lists of the material shouldn't exclude the parent either, since that's done for page navigation and readability mostly. As for CGI, the files are material. That said, if you want a technique category, I'm game, but I think studio model makes more sense next to the models themselves than clip show. - 09:17, October 13, 2011 (UTC) ::The article CGI includes info about the generic process of creating CGI, as well as a list of specific examples. I don't see why matte painting should be treated differently. IMHO, it should be kept to the bare minimums of the precise examples, with links to each case in which they were used, giving the reader more info (for instance, the info about the Genesis cave paintings links to the article about Genesis cave, where there should be more info about the creation of the cave, including the paintings). If a list is favored for the minimalism, rather than small notes, I'd agree to that. --Defiant 09:31, October 13, 2011 (UTC) :::I see some merit in Cid's arguments, however as technique always results in material, establishing a clear defined border may be quite difficult...Wouldn't we avoid this by calling the proposed category "Production techniques and material" ?--Sennim 10:22, October 13, 2011 (UTC) :I'm definitely open to a different name for this category (although the new suggestion is a little "unwieldy"). It might help if we started by defining the descriptive text that will eventually end up on the category page. What is it supposed to be? -- Cid Highwind 10:25, October 13, 2011 (UTC) Running with Sennim's suggestion, I'd go with "Production techniques and the material associated with them." as opposed to "Production material and the techniques used to create them." which would be for a category called "Production material and techniques". The original suggestion, based on us having more pure "material" articles than "technique" ones, would have been something similar to the second option, for the same reason that Sennim already mentioned. - 11:40, October 13, 2011 (UTC) :::Well, that has been my intent in making my suggestion, to put technique before material to indicate the "logical" order, which make me like Duke's first option; perhaps even a little more tersely formulated as "Production techniques and associated materials" (possibly: On-screen production techniques and associated materials"), which to me at least sounds pretty descriptive and has IMO an advantage to serve as a "catch-all" and as a solid starting point to develop a category tree in the future, when circumstances so dictate...Sennim 14:22, October 13, 2011 (UTC) :I'm still not convinced of putting all of that into one category. The "and" in the suggested new title and the description is a good indicator of something being wrong here. To explain, consider what will happen if we get much more articles in this category. The obvious action would be to split into one category for "techniques" and another one for "materials". In that case, will "techniques&materials" still be the best title for a common supercategory? If we had Category:Apples and Category:Oranges, would a good supercategory be called Category:Apples_and_Oranges? Surely not, we'd go for something like Category:Fruit instead. So, what would be a good supercategory title that catches both techniques and materials? And if we can't find one, or if the titles we do find all sound forced - why desperately try putting everything that has been suggested into a single category? -- Cid Highwind 09:56, October 14, 2011 (UTC) The answer is simple, a Production super-cat would be the best choice then, but that would also cover several other categories already in Category:Star Trek, and is getting a bit far afield from one category suggestion. I would ask if you actually foresee enough articles between "techniques" and "materials", even though there is a overlap between the two right now, for there to be a need to split the purposed category without there still being hybrid articles that cover both, or is this all just academic? If the latter, I'm sure that's a bridge we can cross when it happens, though I'm not convinced that we will ever need to. - 10:10, October 14, 2011 (UTC) :No, I don't think that finding the best-possible categorization for any article is "academic" - that's why we're having this page in the first place. It's also not "just splitting hairs" - both comments seem to imply that I just joined this discussion so that I can spend some time although the suggested categorization is, in fact, "objectively good enough" already. I suggest we stop that personal tangent, as it will lead nowhere. :Now that Category:Star Trek has been mentioned, that one has been created with the intent to serve as a "production information category, for all "out of universe" POV articles about the franchise". Whatever categorization we discuss here, it should be a subcategory of that one anyway - so, if it makes more sense to create a subcategory like "Production" there and be done with categorizing the articles we talk about here at the moment (even if that means re-categorizing other Category:Star_Trek articles as well), why not attempt that? -- Cid Highwind 10:44, October 14, 2011 (UTC) That's not what I meant Cid and you know it, or maybe you don't, since you didn't answer the question directly asked: Do "you actually foresee enough articles between "techniques" and "materials", even though there is a overlap between the two right now, for there to be a need to split the purposed category without there still being hybrid articles that cover both?" As for the rest, of course all of these suggestions are going to be under category Star Trek, I thought that was implicit and therefor went without saying. The point I was trying to make when I mentioned other articles was that this was suppose to be a category for just production "techniques" and "materials", since we insist on drawing a line between the two, not all production articles like in-joke, clip show, Category:Filming locations, etc. I'm also not convinced an overall production category, which would also require a decided-on-before-hand description, eliminates the need for the originally purposed category. - 11:32, October 14, 2011 (UTC) :I didn't answer that question, because I considered it to be a sort of strawman argument ("sort of" because I don't want to imply deliberateness on your part - just for lack of a better term): Just because there may not be enough articles for each single category, it doesn't logically follow that a category combining exactly those two categorizations must be a good one. To stick to the earlier fruit example: if Category:Apple and Category:Pie would be "too empty", it doesn't mean that Category:Apples_and_Pies would be a good replacement just because we happen to have an'Apple pie' article. :Basically, what I think we should do here is not to perform a bottom-up categorization by claiming that some things are techniques and others are materials, and then merge this fine categorization until we end up with one that is "big enough". Instead, we should do a top-down categorization of Category:Star Trek by finding good groups of articles there. Actually, the more I think about it, the less I'm sure about some catch-all term like "materials" being a good categorization at all, if it includes things like on-screen props (Feinberger) as well as objects used in effect shots (studio model) as well as things that aren't physical at all (CGI). -- Cid Highwind 12:10, October 14, 2011 (UTC) :::Cid's top-down approach was exactly what I originally had in mind. The way I envisioned it was something like this (I'll elaborate with some not (yet) written articles to show intent): *Star Trek **Production techniques and associated materials (for now, just serving as example) ***Effects ****Special Effects *****Feinberger *****Okudagram *****Mees Panel ****Visual Effects *****Studio model ******Galaxy class model ******''etc'' *****Matte Painting *****CGI ***Photography ****Motion control photography ****Blue-screen filming (on my to-do list) ***Sets ***Costume design ***Props ***''etc'' :::Again, something I was playing with in my mind--Sennim 13:08, October 14, 2011 (UTC) Breaking up Star Trek In that case, shelving the "materials" proposal for now, what would you suggest Cid? The easiest one seems to be doing something with the seasons. - 13:06, October 14, 2011 (UTC) :Yes, the season articles could be grouped together somehow. I also see that series articles (like Star Trek: The Original Series) are categorized as both Category:Star Trek and Category:Star Trek series, which is a direct subcategory to Star Trek. I think we've talked about that before, and I still don't think having an article in both a category and its direct sub is a good scheme - so the series articles could be removed from the super category, and (perhaps) the proposed season article category be merged with the series category (or the other way around). :Then there could be a subcategory about "official publications", with several of the existing subcategories as well as articles like StarTrek.com being moved there. -- Cid Highwind 13:17, October 14, 2011 (UTC) ::Or for that matter "Star Trek movies" that is also sub-listed as "Star Trek films"--Sennim 13:26, October 14, 2011 (UTC) :Another thing: there seem to be a number of "story devices", like Flashback (story device) and Alien of the week (and perhaps Redshirt could be grouped with that), as well as a number of "episode patterns" like Bottle show, Clip show (and perhaps Story arcs and Teaser). Perhaps something can be done with that. -- Cid Highwind 14:46, October 14, 2011 (UTC) I would suggest that Category:Episodes be placed under Category:Star Trek seasons (which would contain the seasons), and would be under Category:Star Trek series. I also support a category call "Category:Star Trek publications" for official publications. I still have nothing new for story devices or material/techniques. - 22:35, October 19, 2011 (UTC) Here's some groupings I've been brainstorming: The first one would need a name, and I'm not sure about "Documentaries and specials", since Documentaries could be under Specials if it was worded right. Thoughts? - 12:21, November 3, 2011 (UTC) ::A possible name for your first one could be "Film production devices"... ::As for your second grouping I suggest something like this. ::*Merchandised Star Trek ::**Printed Material ::***Comics ::***Novels ::***Calendars ::**Music ::***Soundtrack ::**Games ::***Boardgames ::***Computergames ::**Collectibles ::***''Star Trek'' modelkits ::**Home Media Formats ::***VHS ::***DVD ::***''etc'' ::And coming back to a point you've referenced to earlier: ::*Filmed Star Trek ::**Star Trek Movies ::***''Star Trek: The Motion Picture'' ::***''etc'' ::**Star Trek Series ::***TOS ::***TAS ::***''etc'' ::The third grouping could be something like this ::*Referenced (or "Behind-the-scenes" or "Explained" or "Explored") Star Trek ::**Documentaries and specials (I think these two could remain grouped together) ::**Printed Reference Works ::***Books ::***Magazines ::Admittingly the last two are tricky as they could also fall under printed material merchandise in my set-up...for your consideration--Sennim 15:50, November 3, 2011 (UTC) :::Personally, I'm not a big fan of the "film production devices" cat; I'd suggest something more along the lines of "production and plot devices", though I'd probably prefer two separate cats. --Defiant 16:30, November 3, 2011 (UTC) :::I'd suggest the "Referenced Star Trek" cat be called "Reference works", with the "Printed Reference works" either staying as that, or being named "printed publications" or "printed reference publications". --Defiant 16:41, November 3, 2011 (UTC) ::"Plot Devices" sounds good to me as a sub-cat of "Production", on this I'm in agreement with Defiant..--Sennim 16:42, November 3, 2011 (UTC) :::I also like the "Documentaries and specials" idea, and agree that they could be bunched together. --Defiant 16:48, November 3, 2011 (UTC) Defiant has also a point with "Reference works" as another cat could be "Star Trek referenced" under which things like Popular culture references in Star Trek, and Redshirt could fall--Sennim 17:02, November 3, 2011 (UTC) ::::Er... why can't Magazines and reference books be under both "Star Trek references" and "Printed merchandise"? I can think of no good reason... -- sulfur 17:41, November 3, 2011 (UTC) :::I actually also had the same thought, but assumed that there was a good reason, as Sennim evidently considered the possibility (at least) of them falling under both cats. --Defiant 17:51, November 3, 2011 (UTC) :::What would the requirements of the "Star Trek referenced" cat be?! --Defiant 17:55, November 3, 2011 (UTC) ::Ah, I stand corrected...Somehow, I operated under the assumption that were was some sort of mutual exclusivity, my bad:)..As for the "Star Trek referenced cat, I was thinking along the lines of mentioning or referral to Star Trek outside the franchise itself, such as Popular culture references in Star Trek (which as I've noted is already pretty much subcat'ed). Thing like The Physics of Star Trek could find a place there--Sennim 17:55, November 3, 2011 (UTC) :::Something like "References to Star Trek" would probably be less grammatically awkward, therefore. --Defiant 18:28, November 3, 2011 (UTC) Category:Star Trek publications was the original suggestion that would seem to cover most printed material. This could be placed under a larger cat that covers things like the games and soundtracks. The thing as I see it to keep in mind with any cat for the pop culture pages, including Redshirt, is that tributes and references in Trek should be in the same category, so I suggest the category be called something like "Star Trek pop culture" with this definition "This category covers references of Star Trek in pop culture as well as references to pop culture in Star Trek." I guess I'm a bit confused on the Documentaries and specials cat, are we now in favor of just renaming Documentaries to that? - 22:28, November 3, 2011 (UTC) ::If we are going to differentiate then "Star Trek printed publications" sounds better to me imo, as soundtracks and dvd's and such, technically are also publications, unless you've meant my suggestion "Merchandised Star Trek", then its fine by me as it results in something like this.. ::*Star Trek Publications ::**Printed Material(s) ::**Games ::**Music ::**Collectibles ::**Home Media Formats ::**Webcontent ::I've to admit that references inside Trek to outside the franchise was nagging me in the back in the head. But as I see it, while the majority of them are, not all references are pop culture; the Physics book I mentioned is one of them, the christening of the first Space Shuttle another as are some science programs that uses Star Trek as illumination (popular science is something different from popular culture). So besides a (sub) cat "Star Trek popular culture", I additionally propose a cat "Star Trek popular science" along the same lines...Similarly I propose this cat to be categorized within a yet to be named cat like this: ::*Star Trek and the world (worktitle) ::**Star Trek popular culture ::**Star Trek auctions ::**Category:Star Trek exhibits and attractions ::***Star Trek exhibitions ::I guess we do :) Defiant yesterday, before he edited the remark out again (I hope he forgives me for mentioning it) made a very solid point that some documentaries exhibit traits of specials and vice versa, in other words the line between the two are often very blurry. A prime example is The Star Trek Logs: An MTV Big Picture Special Edition which essentially is a documentary embedded in a special. By naming the cat "Documentaries and specials", we avoid possible yes/no discussions.--Sennim 08:55, November 4, 2011 (UTC) ::::I didn't do the "vice versa" bit; my point was purely that not all specials are documentaries, so I was meaning to outline a difference, not a similarity. I saw that particular difference was not at question – it was whether all documentaries can be classed as specials (the vice versa bit) that was under question. That's why I removed my remark. There's nothing to forgive, re: you "mentioning" it, but I wish you hadn't misinterpreted me so much. I may partially be to blame for that, though, as I didn't leave the comment on this page. Although recognizing a difference between the two types, I also favor the joint title "Documentaries and specials". --Defiant 09:36, November 4, 2011 (UTC) ::I apologize for the misinterpretation, please consider my remark as a separate argument for the joint title proposal.--Sennim 10:34, November 4, 2011 (UTC) ::::No harm done; apology accepted. :) To sort of get this back on track: yeah, it now seems that the community consensus is to rename "Documentaries" to "Documentaries and specials". --Defiant 11:23, November 4, 2011 (UTC) :::::I have to say I'm not too happy about the "Documentaries and specials" title, for the reasons I've already brought up last time an "and" category was suggested. Basically, having a category like this means that either one is a subgroup of the other ("a documentary is a special" or "a special is a documentary"), or that both are different variations of the same superordinate concept. In the former case, this should be reflected by one category being the parent of the other - and in the latter case, we should try to find a proper name for the superordinate concept, and not take the "shortcut" of simply and-ing both subconcepts together. If we can't find a proper new title for that super category, we should just create both individual ones and leave them at Category:Star Trek. -- Cid Highwind 11:41, November 4, 2011 (UTC) ::Okay then, I'll give it a try...how about "Non-franchise productions", "Non-regular productions", "Non-franchise framework productions" or "Incidental productions" ?--Sennim 11:48, November 4, 2011 (UTC) :::::Counterquestion: Why does there have to be another level of categories that separates a "Specials" and a "Documentaries" category from the main "Star Trek franchise" category? If the suggested categories are mostly disjunct, wouldn't it suffice to have both of them as direct subs to Category:Star Trek, with the rare"special documentary" simply being placed in both categories? -- Cid Highwind 12:00, November 4, 2011 (UTC) ::Well if you look here, the special documentary isn't that rare anymore...and a separation between special and documentary was not suggested, but rather to be kept grouped together...Sennim 12:12, November 4, 2011 (UTC) :::::Archduk3's initial brainstorming has a category "D&S" formatted in a way that it looks as if it was meant to be a supercategory to individual "D" and "S" categories - so, I believe a separation has been suggested, even if not by you. Archduk3 even expressed some doubts about the name of exactly that category, which I share. Just to avoid any misunderstandings. I don't mind the individual categories - but as long as a supercategory for those is just a simple merge without any additional "logic" being put into it, it shouldn't exist: Something IS-A "special", or it isn't. Something IS-A "documentary" or it isn't. But even if it happens to be both at the same time, it is not a "documentary-and-special". Both documentaries and specials may be "incidental productions" - but is that really an important categorization that helps users find what they are looking for, or is it just some categorization to have an additional categorization? -- Cid Highwind 12:57, November 4, 2011 (UTC) ::::Well, I really don't like "Specials" being a single cat. It not only seems a bit "naff" (at least to me), but also runs the risk of needing more clarification; "television specials" or "televised specials" would be better, IMO, if not "Documentaries and specials". --Defiant 13:18, November 4, 2011 (UTC) :::::The suggested three members of "Specials" are all specific broadcast formats, so an alternative name could be something along those lines: Category:Broadcast formats, Category:Special broadcast, Category:Special broadcast editions, ... This would also clarify that there isn't much overlap between that category and "documentaries". -- Cid Highwind 13:34, November 4, 2011 (UTC) ::::Me like-y. :) --Defiant 13:46, November 4, 2011 (UTC) ::I don't like a separate "Specials" cat either...And my intent was to avoid additional categorization, and keep it to one only. I don't think we should add "television" or "broadcast" to the yet to be discerned title as it excludes "one-off productions" on VHS and Laserdiscs, some of them not broadcast, like Inside Star Trek - The Real Story.--Sennim 13:46, November 4, 2011 (UTC) ::::That's a good point, actually. I forgot to think of that. Is there some reason we should try to avoid "too much" categorization, though? --Defiant 13:49, November 4, 2011 (UTC) ::In principle, no, as long as there is a logical breakdown in the cat tree and if there are clear defined borders, which in the case at hand aren't...Though I (now :)) see your point in distinguishing between the two, in my mind they are two sides of the same coin, i.e "one-off productions".--Sennim 14:07, November 4, 2011 (UTC) :::::Yes, there is. Categorization is mostly used for one of two things - a user working his way up through the tree starting from an article (idea: user wants to read articles about similar topics), or a user working his way down from the root (idea: user wants to find articles about a specific topic, but doesn't know the exact name of that topic). In either case, having a number of consecutive subcategories without any real subgrouping of topics going on (idea: a lenghty branch of the tree without leafs) is just annoying and without sense. Regarding Inside Star Trek - The Real Story - that one is even called a "documentary" in its article, so why wouldn't that sensibly be categorized as such? Why does another category have to make room for that, if there doesn't have to be any overlap? -- Cid Highwind 14:07, November 4, 2011 (UTC) ::I actually own a copy of Inside Star Trek - The Real Story, and nowhere on its sleeve it is stated to be a "documentary", or a "special" for that matter. The author of the article used common sense naming it as such. Also bear in mind that the term "special" is as much a marketing term for broadcasting companies (special sounds better than documentary) as it is descriptive. I certainly did not intend to have a existing category, i.e. Category:Documentaries make room for another one, but it seems in order to have it renamed as per your suggestion as a "superordinate concept" as you've put it, especially considering the ambiguity and overlap between the two terms. For the record, if I understood you correctly, though worded differently, we're of the same mind concerning the logical top-down method, and that was what I was trying to convey in my possible examples earlier on this page, giving the casual user an opportunity to travel up and down the cat-tree (with leaves to use your metaphor) in an organized and logical fashion. I am a big proponent of that.--Sennim 15:54, November 4, 2011 (UTC) When I suggested that Documentaries could be placed under Specials, I was using this definition for Special: "A thing, such as an event, product, or broadcast, that is designed or organized for a particular occasion or purpose." The category Special was suppose to "catch" the 2.0 broadcasts and marathons, which tend to have some documentary like features, but clearly aren't what people would think of as a documentary. A combined category is simply placing these similar things into one location, which I don't see as much of a problem, since over categorizing can be just as much a problem as not enough. That said, I fine with either solution. - 16:46, November 4, 2011 (UTC) ::How about "Special Incidental Releases". it should capture it all..--Sennim 17:22, November 4, 2011 (UTC) I'm not exactly sure what's gained by adding "incidental" and "releases", since the latter would either be implicit or problematic for any unreleased material. There isn't much need to be over specific with the title if the page itself defines what the title means. That said, I guess at this point I'm suggesting a Special category with Documentaries under it is the simplest and easiest solution if we don't want a combined Documentaries and Specials category. I'm also fine with a "Star Trek merchandise" category, or simply "Merchandise", as described above to replace "Star Trek publications" for the calendars and such, as "merchandise" has a broader definition than "publications". - 18:16, November 4, 2011 (UTC) :::::There seem to be different interpretations of "Special" floating around here, which may have caused this lengthy tangent. :) If I understand Archduk3 correctly, he suggests that a special is simply any "special purpose audio/video publication" - whether that "speciality" lies in form or in content of the broadcast. If we follow that interpretation, then there's no need for another category for the combination of "documentaries and specials" - because any documentary is already a special (special in content), so Category:Documentaries should be a subcategory of Category:Specials. :::::However, following Sennim, "Special" is an ill-defined term that is "as much a marketing term" as something else - in which case, we probably should find a term that conveys the meaning of "non-standard in form or content" better than having just Category:Specials would do? If we're looking for such term, I have to agree with Archduk3 that "Special Incidental Releases" is not it - that seems to just add two more buzzwords to the first, and no one would really understand what that category is about. :::::Potential compromise solution: Let us create Category:Specials as a sub to Category:Star Trek and super to Category:Documentaries, and fill that category with the three broadcast formats as suggested. We'll then note that this "Specials" category is somewhat controversial, and will revisit it in some months to see if it works as expected (or needs to be renamed). -- Cid Highwind 11:14, November 5, 2011 (UTC) ::Well, we have at one point do something, so I'll go along with your suggestion. As for merchandise, I think that in the description the term "official" or "licensed" should be dropped in order to avoid being painted in a corner were things like the Schuster & Schuster publications are concerned.--Sennim 11:54, November 5, 2011 (UTC) Recap and Production So to recap: I still think that any interaction between Star Trek and the real world can fall under the title "pop culture" with the right definition. We also seem to have come full circle for Production, Material, and Techniques. *Category:Production **Category:Deleted material **Category:Production lists **Category:Production staff **Category:Production timeline **Category:Plot devices ***Bottle show ***Clip show ***Flashback (story device) ***In-joke ***Product placement ***Story arcs ***Teaser **Category:Undeveloped projects **Category:Unused production material **Star Trek fonts **Syndication **etc. This leaves the question if we want to leave Category:Studio models, CGI, Feinberger, Mees panel, and Okudagram under just "Production" or find a name that works for a sub-cat. - 19:59, November 6, 2011 (UTC) :Well, this looks certainly like a concerted effort to bringing order to the cats, at least to me :) I think auctions should be left where you've put, as the stuff auctioned off was originally for the most part actually used for the productions, and not specifically manufactured to commercial ends...I personally still would like to see "Special Effects" and "Visual Effects" as two sub-cats, but I guess a single "Effects" sub-cat would also do...--Sennim 21:01, November 6, 2011 (UTC) ::Quite a few of these – CGI, Studio models, etc. are frankly incorrect, being post-production rather than production. I would also like to see "visual effects" and "special effects" as two distinctly separate cats, as they are two distinctly different departments in reality. --Defiant 10:38, November 11, 2011 (UTC) :I think Archduk has done fine work in laying out a workable foundation for the cat-tree, easily to be finetuned if the need should arise...kudos! :A few minor points; I think It's A Wrap! sale and auction should be subbed under Category:Star Trek auctions, the name says it all I think :) I further think that 40 Years of Star Trek: The Collection should also (meaning under both cats) be subbed under "auctions" as, while it was true that it was partly an exhibition tour, that served only as promotion for the main event, the 2006 Christies auction, under the same name... :I've to admit that the name of the sub Category:Star Trek and pop culture feels a bit uncomfortable, might I suggest "Star Trek as cultural phenomenon" ?--Sennim 14:21, November 11, 2011 (UTC) conflict - Production is used here as "the act or process of producing" instead of just when "the acquisition of raw footage for post-production is done." So in the context we're using here post production is part of the overall "production" process. We do actually still need a description for the category, which is why this isn't stated yet. I wasn't going to add one until after any further adjustments were made, namely that I still believe "material" and "techniques" should be in their own sub-cat. I figured closing out the broad strokes before covering the details was going to be the fastest way to get any of this done, since Cid seems apposed to any category with an "and" in it. That said, any further adjustment to these should be brought up on the suggestions page, for the creation of sub-cats, or on the article's talk page, if I miscategorized something. - 14:34, November 11, 2011 (UTC) ::But the fact there's only minor tweaks required does show that, overall, you've done an amazing job, Archduk. I second the "kudos" Sennim gave you; great work. :) Aside from that, I did sort of reckon that the term "production" may be meant in the way you've detailed, which I'm essentially fine with... just thought using it in both ways (within this site in general) might be a bit confusing for some. --Defiant 20:37, November 11, 2011 (UTC)